This is a 13 million year-old volcanic ridge called Yucca Mountain. A
5.0 earthquake had rocked the area and did some damage to the media reception
area, display center, cafeteria and office complex. Repairs and seismic
improvements were estimated to cost approximately $2 million. A second 4.4
quake struck this volcanic area on June 4, 2002, centered 12 ½ miles
away. It caused no damage. There are 39 earthquake falts and 7 young volcanoes
in the area around the mountain. DOE had originally said that the area might
expect an earthquake about every 10,000 years.

This geologic zone has been studied and monitored by Department of Energy
project scientists for over 24 years. Representatives of the project have
been assuring the public that Yucca Mountain is stable and that burying 77,000
tons of spent radioactive fuel rods and high level waste would be safe 600
to 950 feet under the mountain. There is a main tunnel sloping downward,
and around the 600 ft. level, a grid of smaller tunnels start and travel
down to about 950 feet, with storage rooms branching off of those smaller
tunnels.

As little as one millionth of a gram will cause cancer if breathed in
or entering your body or blood stream by way of a cut or other openings in
the skin.

Plutonium 239 isotopes have a ½ life of 22,000 years, it needs to
be kept isolated out of the air and water for a very long time. The most
often used figure by project DOE spokesmen is 10,000 years, a figure that
may be grossly underestimated.

Strontium 90, for instance, has a half life of 30 years which means half
of its radioactivity will decay in 30 years. It will then take another 30
years for half of the remaining radioactivity to decay and then an additional
30 years for half of that to decay and on and on. So when it's said that
Strontium 90 has a half life of 30 years, it means it will remain dangerous
for hundreds of years, even at low levels.

Government scientists initially believed that water would take 9,000 to
80,000 years to flow from the repository to the water table far below. In
1997 researchers discovered fractures in the rock where water flows much
faster. Scientists found traces of chlorine-36 which does not exist in nature,
in the five mile tunnel drilled to explore the mountain's rock. That material
is produced by nuclear explosions, most of which took place at the nearby
test facility. In less than 60 years it had already traveled through 800
feet of rock. In 1996 the Energy Department said that some water could go
from the waste repository level to the water table 1,300 feet down, in 50
years.

The most critical challenge that faces the Energy Department is designing
a container capable of keeping the waste not only isolated from the corrosive
effects of water and the environment, but also from the damage caused to
the containers by the radioactive material held inside them for 10,000 years.
It is possible that rain water could seep down through cracks and fissures
in the volcanic mountain, percolating on by the stored material on its way
to the water table far below. That water eventually flows off site where
it feeds wells and surfaces as springs.

But in the end, it may be the wind that poses the most danger with the
possibility of spreading radioactive particles over large areas of land.

At the Hanford Plutonium Production Facility in Washington State, the
Department of Energy has admitted releasing 557,000 curies of radioactivity
material, mostly Iodine 131 for the years 1944, 1945, 46 and 47. Up to 270,000
men, women and children were exposed as downwinders. Documents released under
the Freedom of Information Act, show that biological agents were released
upon an unsuspecting public in San Francisco and in the New York subway system
during the 1960's.

Under the direction of Richard Helms, the CIA had a program called MK-ULTRA
in which it would conduct drug experiments upon members of the military and
U.S. citizens without their knowledge or consent.

The report was completed and released in 1995 admitting government
responsibility and that it was wrong to commit such acts on unaware subjects
during the Cold War. Still only a few have been compensated for their pain
and suffering; while for most, it was too late for reparations, their time
had run out.

On October 30, 2002 it was reported that the U.S. admitted conducting
experiments involving small amounts of the highly toxic nerve gas, sarin.
They were conducted in the U.S, Hawaii and Panama, again on the public without
their knowledge, during the cold war years.

Unless one is exposed to high concentrations of radiation, it is sometimes
difficult to determine the cause of illness because of the delayed effects
after exposure. To complicate this, there are the numerous kinds of radiation
that react differently on different parts of the body. Iodine 131 is short
lived and dangerous for a matter of weeks and will collect in the thyroid.
Strontium 90 on the other hand is dangerous for hundreds of years and will
collect in the bones causing leukemia. Cesium 137 is also dangerous for about
the same period of time and will accumulate in the muscle tissue.

In those early years of the Cold War, the possible health effects of these
tests were suppressed out of national security considerations.

It's estimated that over 300 million curies currently remain in the soil
at the Nevada test site. A curie is a measure of how many atoms per second
are decaying and emitting particles and rays. 10 curies of Cesium 137 would
be enough to contaminate about 200 city blocks.

Yucca Mountain is expected to hold between 10 and 15 times that amount,
if only 77,000 tons are buried there (3 to 41/2 billion curies).

Once again, security considerations seem to be driving a process that
may have tragic consequences for many unaware inhabitants of large portions
of the U.S. This time it is spent nuclear fuel rods and high-level waste
stored around the U.S. at 131 sites in 39 states that would be destined for
Yucca Mountain. Most of these fuel rods are currently stored on site at 103
operating nuclear power plants near densely populated areas. One hundred
sixty one million people currently live within 75 miles of one or more of
these sites.

In a commercial reactor designed to produce electricity, a controlled
chain reaction takes place within the reactor's core by splitting atoms of
uranium. This creates a great amount of heat in the uranium-filled fuel rods
and a variety of products that are highly unstable which give off gamma rays
and sub atomic particles. The heat is then used to boil water; the steam
then turns a turbine which is connected to a generator that produces
electricity.

Hot spent fuel rods containing uranium pellets are removed from the reactor
core before their specially constructed high temperature resistant containers
become dangerously corroded and start to disintegrate from being bombarded
by the atomic particles. They are relocated outside the hardened reactor
containment vessel to a nearby large enclosed, water-filled tank. The tanks
and their domes are made of 4-foot thick reinforced concrete, with the tank
having a steel liner. They are said to be earthquake safe, but not "hardened"
like the containment vessel that house the reactor core.

Experts disagree as to whether in fact the containment vessel could withstand
being struck by a 747 aircraft. Some say it can, while others say that it
can't, but that the resulting fire would burn up and away from the core that
lies below. The cooling tanks on the other hand may be vulnerable if struck
by a small missile or light plane.

It is during this cool down process within these tanks outside the protected
containment vessel that the chances of a catastrophic incident with disastrous
consequences could occur, possibly the result of a terrorist act.

Within the tanks, the spent fuel rods are kept in about 39 feet of water
that glows a rich blue from the excited uranium. Estimates vary depending
upon use and type of spent fuel (military or civilian reactors) as to how
long it must be kept in the pools before they are cool enough to be "dry
casked," a time which can range anywhere from 5 to 30 years -- on average
5 to 10 years. If for any reason the tank is breached and loses its coolant,
the rods will start to overheat melting their containers first, then the
steel pool liner and then the holding tank itself. Other nearby cooler rods
would also be melted into a boiling burning zirconium fire that cannot be
put out. That fire would emit deadly plutonium, Cesium 137, Strontium 90
and other radioactive materials up into the atmosphere to be spread by wind
for hundreds of miles, and possibly thousands!

The resulting melt down of the rods and the tank would be similar to the
core melt down that took place at the Chernobyl reactor in the Soviet Union.
Quite possibly it could be much larger, as there are many more fuel rods
in the cooling tanks than there are normally in a reactor core when it is
operating. Therefore the amount of radiation released could be significantly
higher. While the amount of fuel in a commercial reactor may vary, depending
upon its type, on average there are about 20 tons of fuel rods in the reactor
core under normal operating conditions. For example, the two reactors located
on the Chesapeake Bay have 950 tons of stored radioactive waste on hand,
while the Dresden Plant near Joliet, IL, has 6,579 fuel assemblies, some
15,000 tons, stored in twin pools.

When the Chernobyl reactor exploded in 1985, it blew off the top of the
building, sending up 90 million curies of radioactive debris to a height
of almost two miles (some estimate the total curies released to be actually
several times larger). On site radiation reached 100 roentgens an hour. This
level produces hourly doses hundreds of times the maximum dose that the
International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends for members
of the public per year. Levels on the roof of the destroyed reactor reached
an unbelievable 100,000 roentgens an hour. As of 1996, well over 260,000
sq. kilometers of land in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus still had more
than one curie per sq. kilometer of contamination from Cesium 137.

Millions of people had to be relocated to other areas of the country and
provided with housing, food and medical treatment. Entire towns were abandoned
along with their economic productivity. Everything was left behind. Hundreds
of square miles of once productive farmland, along with all of their animals
and equipment, were lost. An area the size of England, Ireland, and Wales
put together, or about 160,000 sq. kilometers. A dead zone of 25 miles surrounds
the reactor that was once inhabited by 135,000 people who were moved within
10 days of the accident. More than 60 settlements beyond that zone have also
been relocated -- 2.6 million people still live in the heavily contaminated
area that includes over 1,300 towns and villages. A total of about 3.3 million
people have been exposed as a result of the accident, 700,000 of them being
children. One fifth of the area's residences suffer from the effects of radiation
exposure.

It is difficult to get an accurate number of those affected because of
the great dislocation of the inhabitants. Conservative estimates place the
number of deaths at about 32,000; other estimates place the number at almost
twice that figure. Of the 400,000 workers, or "liquidators" as they were
called, who took part in burying the exposed reactor core and constructing
the sarcophagus with its 20- foot thick walls, 5,000 are now too ill to work.
Twenty-eight firefighters and workers died within a few months of the accident
from radiation exposure.

Because of the long latency period no one is quite sure how many new
malignancies will develop or how far they spread in the body. The actual
number becoming ill and those who die will continue to grow over time because
of the latent effects of radiation exposure. The full scope of this tragedy
may not be known for decades. In Russia alone some 3.3 million people were
affected by this accident. Still inside the destroyed reactor are thousands
of metric tons of fuel with a total radio activity of 20 million curies and
a radiation level of several thousand roentgens per hour, lethal for any
life form.

In April of 2002, officials at Chernobyl estimated that gaps in the concrete
and steel shell that covers the damaged reactor totaled more than 10,700
square feet. Openings in the sarcophagus allow water to enter the highly
radio active structure on its way to the water table and the nearby Pripyat
River that ultimately feeds into the Dnieper River which supplies water to
over 30 million people. Eight hundred hastily dug burial sites near the reactor
hold highly radio active waste including trees that absorbed radio isotopes
from the atmosphere. These dumps are thought to be the source of contamination
already showing up in the sediments of the Pripyat River adjacent to Chernobyl.
The estimates include 10,000 curies of Strontium 90, 12,000 Cesium 137 and
2,000 curies of plutonium.

The 15-nation European Union and the Ukraine are planning to cover the
existing sarcophagus with another at a cost of some $700 million and hope
to relocate the dumps, but are unsure of where to put them.

The Chernobyl disaster was so great and it's economic impact so costly,
it is said to have been a major contributing factor in the collapse of the
Soviet Union.

2. Nuclear Waste and Terrorism

Since the 9-11 incident, there has been a sense of urgency to remove these
radioactive materials and in particular the stored fuel rods from their currently
exposed locations and bury them under Yucca Mountain. Before 9-11, visitor
centers at many of the nation's nuclear power plants were freely provided
information about the plants, including aerial photographs identifying individual
structures by number, like the reactors, spent fuel pool buildings and the
dry-cask waste storage area. They were also available on the web. Although
no longer available, the information cannot be taken back.

On July 6, 2002, the government told owners and operators of private planes
to strengthen security because terrorists may try to use "general aviation
aircraft to attack the United States." Of the 215,000 planes that fly daily
in the U.S., over 200,000 are small planes or general aviation aircraft.
The Transportation Security Administration said it had "credible indications"
that terrorists were planning attacks by using small planes, but were "unaware
of what targets they may go after."

In addition to the 40,000 tons of fuel rods already stored around the
U.S., at the nation's nuclear power plants, each plant produces another 20
tons of spent fuel rods a year. Because of the potential disaster that exists
from a terrorist strike by flying a plane into the cooling tanks, it has
been suggested that "Hot Packing" the rods under Yucca Mountain might be
a solution to reducing their vulnerability.

Hot Packing would involve placing the hot fuel rods directly into
transportation casks as they come out of the reactor and "bypassing" the
cool down period that normally lasts from 5 to 30 years. This would greatly
reduce the amount of time where they are most vulnerable to an accident or
attack. Hot Packing would save time but would result in the rods melting
their casks, and literally boiling the volcanic rock that surrounds them
under Yucca Mountain. A risky maneuver, as no one knows what else might
happen.

After the rods have cooled enough, they are placed in "dry casks" in order
to reduce the danger of an accident and prepare the rods for relocation.
These casks are heavily reinforced concrete and steel, about 15 feet long
and reportedly strong enough to withstand a crash at 81 mph into a concrete
wall. They are not, however, a "zero risk proposition" and they have not
been tested against a missile attack. Only 18 reactor sites have so far started
dry packing casks. Fourteen additional sites will have enough cooled rods
to begin dry packing in the near future. It is hoped that by 2010 up to 60
sites total will have their cooled fuel rods in dry cask containers.

In June of 2002, the state of California made plans to distribute potassium
Iodide tablets to nearly ½ million people living within 10 miles of
a nuclear power plant. They are currently talking about expanding it to a
50-mile radius to protect many more inhabitants, and possibly even further
in the near future. This decision comes six months after the NRC (Nuclear
Regulatory Commissions) offered the pills to 34 states with nuclear reactors
enough potassium iodide to give each person within 10 miles of a reactor
two days worth of medication. Experts, however, suggest a 14-day course of
treatment. The NRC believes that to be unnecessary as they feel people will
evacuate any danger zone quickly. But no plans have been made to distribute
the pills to the military, police or fire departments.

The U.S. Postal Service has gone ahead on its own and purchased 1.6 million
doses to protect its employees against thyroid cancer in the event of a nuclear
explosion or meltdown. Millions of people who live in 10 states including
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, have already received the pills.

These pills will not protect a person from all forms of radiation poisoning
such as that received from plutonium, cesium, strontium, or any of the other
forms of radiation; it will only protect the thyroid from absorbing radioactive
iodine and only if it is taken shortly after exposure. It works by flooding
the thyroid with harmless iodine, thereby preventing the radioactive iodine
from being absorbed. The government is passing out these pills to calm the
public's fears since 9-11, as the public demands protection.

The only real protection would be evacuation of those downwind areas,
something that is probably impossible, as the result would be gridlock.

Back in 1982, a study was done on the possible effects of a "reactor failure."
They estimated that it could kill approximately 27,000 people in the first
year, and another 18,000 deaths would occur over the long term, and it would
result in $86 billion in property damage.

In late 2002, ABS, which specializes in qualifying losses from natural
and man-made hazards, and ANATECH Corp., a firm that evaluates structural
failures, created computer models of the 4-foot thick concrete reactor
containment domes. They have concluded that a 767-400 Jetliner, fully loaded
with 28,980 gallons of fuel, flown directly into the center of a reactor
at 350 mph, would not penetrate the structure.

The NRC did not mention if any tests were conducted upon the storage pools
for spent fuel rods. Separate computer modeled crash tests on a reactor's
vulnerability are classified and being conducted by the Sandia National
Laboratories.

Robert Alvarez, a former advisor for the Energy Dept., recently told a
senate committee of a 1997 analysis that had been done. He said a fire at
a spent fuel pool could contaminate up to 188 sq. miles of land. The NRC
acknowledges that its efforts at protecting the pools have been focused upon
earthquake and natural disasters and not on a possible terrorist attack.
The analysis showed that an aircraft crashing into a spent fuel structure
would do significant damage to the building but that " the pool itself would
not leak significantly."

Jack Skolds, an industry spokesman and chief nuclear officer at Exelon
said, "Can I categorically say every spent fuel pool would withstand the
impact of a 767 aircraft? No, I can't tell you that. I can tell you they
are very safe indeed."

Exelon owns 17 nuclear reactors located in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
(Since 9-11, plainclothes employees at Exelon reactors have started to carry
semi-automatic rifles.)

There are 80 nuclear power plants operating east of the Mississippi; nine
are located in New York and Pennsylvania. If for any reason one of these
9 reactor sites were to experience a loss of water in their holding tanks
for the hot spent fuel rods, it could send a radioactive cloud sweeping over
New York City and other populated areas downwind, leaving New York state,
including Manhattan Island, uninhabitable. The resulting economic devastation
running into the trillions of dollars could very possibly lead to the collapse
of the US economy. The only way to reduce this threat of exposure is to reduce
the on-site storage of radioactive waste.

Shipping the 77,00 tons of radioactive material from 131 sites, located
in 39 states, across 45 states to Yucca Mountain is how the Department of
Energy plans to reduce that risk. This includes 44,000 tons of spent fuel
rods from 31 states and 33,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste, most
from bomb and warhead-making facilities located in 8 other states. This material
would be shipped by truck and rail across 45 states and through some densely
populated areas, like Chicago and St. Louis. Much of it would be shipped
in steel casks, while the more highly radioactive material would be shipped
in lead lined casks. Each rail cask would weigh approximately 145 tons and
hold an amount of Cesium 137 that would be the equivalent of 260 times that
released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The Nuclear Energy Institute has reported
that these waste canister cylinders have 15-inch thick, triple layered walls
of steel and lead. They have undergone tests to withstand punctures, 120
mph collisions and exposure to a 21,475-degree fire for ½ hour.

It is estimated that 99,700 trips by truck will be required from 72 of
the nuclear power plants alone, with an additional 16,240 coming from the
Hanford facility, and another 2,460 from Idaho National Engineering. Thousands
of more trips would be required for the 57 additional sites. Some 50 million
people live within a ½ mile of these projected routes. Critics have
pointed out that the trucks or trains could become targets of terrorists
or that an accident could occur, leaving one of the casks leaking its cargo
into the air, rivers, or lakes. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says there
is little risk to the public, and that the U.S. has already transported 2,700
loads of spent nuclear waste over 1.6 million miles since the 1960's, "without
one accident resulting from the harmful release of radiation." This information
is disputed by representatives of the state of Nevada who contend that there
have been 11 accidents where detectable amounts of radioactive materials
were released.

Every year some 60 loads of high-level radioactive material are shipped
by the Navy department, mostly spent reactor fuel from submarines and atomic
power plants.

Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn said that he would continue to fight the Yucca
Mountain dumpsite saying that the state has already filed six laws suits
against the project. The first suit attacks the Environmental Protection
Agency's decision that Yucca Mountain be designed for a safety span of 10,000
years vs. 1 million years as advised by the National Academy of Sciences.
The lawsuit also challenges EPA standards regulating the amount of radiation
that would be allowed to leak from Yucca Mountain.

The second lawsuit challenges the government decision to rely on "engineered
solutions" to keep radiation within Yucca Mountain. Despite the fact that
in1982 Congress mandated that a "geologically safe site" be selected, government
scientists have concluded Yucca Mountain is not solid enough to contain
radiation. In addition, opponents say the mountain has many water-seeping
fractures.

In a story published on Nov. 28, 2002, in the Las Vegas Review Journal,
Bill Belke states that he was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's senior
on-site representative at the project for seven years. During that time he
watched closely as Department of Energy contract workers tried to troubleshoot
two decades of data that scientists had gathered. Some of the information
involved earthquake hazards, volcanic activity and groundwater paths. "Computer
models were created with the test of time." Belke said, "I know with the
problems I've seen, there's been a lot of problems with the data, and the
data, if its going to a License, has got to be a high pedigree quality to
support their licensing activities. They've got to make a case that this
data is accurate and qualified. There are significant problems."

There are reports that two men who worked on the site as quality assurance
specialists were fired or transferred after voicing concerns about the site.
Nevada senators Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign have alleged
"fraud and abuse " in the firing of the two workers and are calling for
congressional investigation. Reid was also sent an anonymous letter on Nov.
25, 2002 that stated; "Currently as much as 50 percent of the data used to
support the site recommendation of the Yucca Mountain Project is lost - NRC
is aware of this." The data for the core samples, geology, volcanic activity
and ground water paths may not be complete or accurate and may not have been
documented properly. Equipment used to gather some of this information would
be calibrated differently today.

Opponents of the project contend that it is the nuclear industry that
has been pushing the project forward. Without a permanent repository for
the spent fuel currently stored on site around the country, the industry
can't possibly move forward with plans for further construction. Since 1994
the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent
approximately $72 million lobbying in favor of a repository at Yucca
Mountain.

At Clark County, Nevada, a study released in January 2002, estimated that
a roadway accident including nuclear material on its way to Yucca Mountain
could force 90,000 residents to move and eliminate 54,000 jobs and cost the
economy $1.4 Billion. Joe Davis of the Energy Department says, "We have an
incredible track record, the amount of shipping would increase but we think
we could safely and securely continue to move it." But in mid July 2002,
as the vote in the U.S. Senate neared, some Senators began to question the
transportation plans and voice their concerns.

Sen. Barbara Boxer D- Calif. says her "worst nightmare" is terrorists
blowing up a truckload of lethal nuclear waste and contaminating a heavily
populated stretch of Interstate 15 between L.A. and Nevada.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-ILL, thinks it is very dangerous to be moving
thousands of tons of nuclear waste through Chicago's dense hub of railways
and highways, or "God Forbid", on barges crossing the Great Lakes or traveling
on the Mississippi River.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski is fearful of a repeat of last years Baltimore rail
tunnel accident and fire, but this time possibly involving spent fuel from
Maryland's Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. "We cannot risk this happening
with nuclear cargo", she said. "This nuclear waste is going to go by our
schools; it's going to go by our hospitals. It is going to go by our children.
It's going to go by our homes."

Former Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., said she is opposed to the transportation
plan after learning that there would be more than 19,000 truck and 4,000
rail shipments of nuclear waste going through her state saying, "I don't
want Missouri to become the nation's waste super highway."

Yucca Mountain is scheduled to begin receiving shipments in 2010, and
are to be continued for at least another 38 years. So far an estimated $6.8
billion has been spent on this 24-year-old project, with another estimated
$51 billion needed to complete it. These are only estimates for the project
as currently configured, and may possibly grow larger as the volume of
radioactive waste continues to increase. Add to this the costs of constructing
the storage casks, shipping, and that of making possibly 200,000 trips in
caravans with heavily armed personnel. Estimates for those costs have not
been released by the Department of Energy so far, but are sure to be in the
billions of dollars. The cost of Nuclear Power, originally thought to be
so cheap that we wouldn't need electric meters and could leave the lights
on all the time, as well as the expense associated with radioactive waste
that grows ever larger from the cold war bomb and war head assembly plants
and its related facilities, continue to spiral upward, with no end in
sight.

In reactors designed to produce plutonium for weapons, the spent fuel
rods are removed from the reactor core and undergo a series of processing
procedures to recover the tiny bits of plutonium (approximately 3 grams per
fuel rod). This is accomplished by using a variety of chemicals and acids
such as nitric acid to melt the rods and uranium pellets inside. Plutonium
being heavier drops to the bottom of this solution and is then able to be
recovered. After further processing, it is eventually molded then machined
into spherical pits. This plutonium pit, usually about the size of a softball,
then becomes the heart of a thermo nuclear "weapons." It's during this separating
process to recover the plutonium that large quantities of liquid, long lived,
radioactive waste are produced.

Over 55 million gallons are stored at the Hanford reservation in Washington
State. This mix of radioactive waste includes many dangerous chemicals, acids
and nitrates that if not treated properly, can be very explosive. The waste
solution is then stored in underground tanks that vary in size, holding anywhere
from 55,000 to 1.4 million gallons.

Heat generated by the decaying isotopes requires that the tanks containing
the potentially explosive solutions be surrounded by a circulation system
of water-filled cooling pipes. Because of the extremely corrosive nature
of their contents and the deteriorating effects that the radiation has upon
them, some tanks develop leaks after a short period of time, requiring their
contents to be transferred to others. Sixty five tanks have leaked over 1
million gallons into the ground at Hanford. In addition to the required cooling,
some tanks need to be stirred on a regular schedule (at a cost of $1.4 million
per stirring) to keep them from developing dangerous internal "hot" and/or
"dry" spots. If for any reason there is a cooling system failure and the
contents dry out, the nitrates and other chemicals can spontaneously
explode.

Which is just what happened in 1957 at the Miaks Works, a Plutonium Production
facility, said to be a pipe-for-pipe copy of the Hanford complex in the United
States. It was in the Urals at Chelyabinsk in the former Soviet Union that
a storage tank's water cooling system failed, allowing its contents to dry
out. The nitrates inside exploded like a bomb, blowing off the top and spewing
20 million curies of Strontium 90, Cesium 137, and other radioactivity material
almost a mile into the air. It drifted downwind, contaminating 15,000 square
miles, super saturating an area 300 miles long and 1 to 2 miles wide. The
government was slow to act but eventually 30 villages and their surrounding
farms of over 10,000 people were evacuated, leaving everything behind.

A scientist was sent by the Soviet Government to investigate the scope
of the disaster and it's effects upon farm animals and the land. Years later
in 1973, his assistant wrote an article describing the extent of the accident
for a British magazine. It was dismissed as "scientific fantasy" by Sir John
Hill, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority in Great Britain at the time,
and "nonsense" by the nuclear scientific community.

The C.I.A. also knew about the accident, but in what could have been a
propaganda coup for the U.S., during those cold war years, chose not to publicly
disclose it. Both Britain and the U.S. were in the midst of promoting and
expanding their own nuclear power and weapons programs at the time.

As devastating as Chernobyl was, the accident at Chelyabinsk is said by
experts to be even-worse because of the highly concentrated and long-lived
nature of the radioactivity material involved. We may never know the extent
of human suffering for those living downwind or why the government delayed
so long before ordering the evacuations. Most every aspect of nuclear weapons
programs and nuclear power seem to be synonymous with secrecy and deception.
Today, 45 years after the accident at Chelyabinsk, the public in the U.S.
knows very little about this event.

While viewing one of the tank farms at Hanford, my guide told me about
an event that took place some time ago. It seems faint noises could be heard
coming one of the tanks that over time gradually grew louder until it was
violently shaking with loud bangs emanating from inside. Working day and
night they were able to remove the top and stir the contents, avoiding a
possible explosive situation similar to the one that occurred in Chelyabinsk.
For those Nuclear engineers working at Hanford that do know the facts, it
must be a sobering moment whenever they think about those people living downwind
and in nearby cities like Spokane, Washington. Every country with a nuclear
weapons program has these same waste storage problems and the same potential
for disaster.

Some sites like the Hanford facility are so contaminated and the amount
of dangerous radioactive waste so massive that they could never be made safe
regardless of how many billions or trillions of dollars are spent. Numerous
places around the U.S. will have to be declared national sacrifice areas.
They will need to be fenced off and guarded until radioactive materials decay
on their own. Some radioactive isotopes have a ½ life of over a million
years.

While the discussion continues on how best to consolidate the waste and
to reduce the threat of accident or terrorists attacks at these 131 sites,
each nuclear power plant will continue to produce 20 tons of spent fuel rods
every year, requiring more storage space than currently proposed at Yucca
Mountain. In addition to the radioactive waste, in June of 2002, the Bush
Administration instructed that a blue print be drawn up for the quickest
way to resume underground testing of nuclear weapons devices in the event
that it decides to resume testing.

In addition to that request, is one tucked inside the $393 billion Defense
Dept. bill just approved by congress. It authorizes the National Security
Administration to spend $15 million to study modifying nuclear weapons so
they could be used to destroy underground factories and laboratories. Critics
argue that it is the Bush Administration's first step toward producing weapons
that would require a resumption of nuclear testing. The Department of Energy,
at the direction of the Bush Administration, has been pressing ahead with
its plans for a new plutonium pit production facility.

In addition, final approval was given last year (2002) for Tritium production
to take place within commercial nuclear reactors. What this means is that
the Administration is moving forward with its plans for a new round of testing,
development and eventual production of a whole new generation of nuclear
weapons. The previous administration had for many years been concentrating
on the dismantling and destruction of existing nuclear weapons under the
SALT I and II treaties (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and the ABMT (Anti
Ballistic Missile Treaty) of 1972 that it had been signed with the Russians.
The Bush Administration withdrew from the ABM Treaty in early 2002 so it
could proceed to develop and deploy a missile defense system.

While other nations may break treaties, the Bush Administration said it
has merely "withdrawn from an obsolete and out dated treaty", thereby maintaining
the integrity of the United States.

The U.S. can now proceed to test and develop the latest high tech delivery
and weapons systems, including more advanced versions of the six year old
B-61, Mod 11 "bunker busting" tactical nuclear bomb, anxiously awaited by
some in the military. The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can only
burrow 20 feet into the ground before detonating. The reported yield of the
B-61 devices in the U.S. inventory varies from less than one kiloton of TNT
to more than 350 (The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons).

Rep. Edward J. Markey D-Mass said, "A new bunker-busting nuclear earth
penetrator sends exactly the wrong signal to the world. At a time when we
are trying to discourage other countries such as North Korea from developing
nuclear weapons, it looks hypocritical for us to be preparing to introduce
a whole new generation of nuclear weapons into the arsenal." A physicist
with the Federation of American Scientists, Michael A. Levi said, "these
are brute force bombs", although a bunker-buster might release less fallout
than other nuclear weapons, it would still spread enough radiation to kill
thousands of people.

The resumption of testing would of course create thousands of tons more
radioactive waste to be dealt with, high-level waste with Plutonium 239,
Cesium 137, Strontium 90, etc.

3. Nuclear Waste: The Growing Predicament

Can the DOE avoid shipping this material to Yucca Mountain? If so, 100,000
trips by truck across the nation could be avoided with all the associated
risks!

Some have said leave the material at the current 131 sites, but make them
safer from terrorist attacks from the air by creating no fly zones above
them and also station Marines with stinger hand-held missiles ready to fire
at any threatening aircraft. At the same time, create a plan by which the
holding tanks and lids can be hardened; or replace the tanks with others
buried underground.

In addition to the hazard that the spent fuel rods present, there are
numerous aging reactors and plutonium production facilities scattered around
the U.S. The concrete walls of these structures contain hundreds of millions
of curies. At the Hanford facility in Washington State, there are some 160
tanks which vary in size from 55,000 to a million and a half gallons "containing"
the most deadly radioactive substances on earth, buried in the ground, without
hardened domes. There are also cribs, where hundreds of thousands of tons
of radioactive waste have been buried; they include everything from trucks,
tools and bulldozers to whole nuclear reactors. And finally there are locations
where billions of gallons of radioactive liquid were just poured on the soil.
The cribs and contaminated soil could produce a sizable toxic fire fed by
the plane's fuel and construction material. But if a plane were to penetrate
one of the high-level radioactive waste tanks, it could be much worse than
any other scenario previously mentioned.

So, we have finally reached the point at which no matter what we do with
the waste, the potential for disaster is very great. Ever since the nuclear
genie was let out of the bottle back in 1944, we have tried to control its
energy and radioactive waste, while being assured that with each new bomb
or missile we would become safer and more secure. We were told about the
benefits of safe, clean and cheap nuclear power and not to worry about its
radioactive waste, for technology would soon solve that problem. As the years
passed and the missile numbers increased, we found ourselves less safe and
less secure and more threatened with each new missile, while the radioactive
waste continued to grow. And as nuclear power plants expanded in numbers,
the cost of construction soared out of sight sending Westinghouse and General
Electric to bank their profits and the consumers to write their checks, while
the waste continued to pile up. Soon we will have a solution we were told.

At the Hanford plutonium production facility in Washington, their
technological solution was to bore holes in the earth and pour billions of
gallons of radioactive waste down into them to get "rid" of it. Today it
leeches into the near-by Columbia River. Cold War facilities with their
radioactive materials contaminated the ground water, rivers, air and land.
When some of the aging nuclear power plants were decommissioned, the costs
of dismantling were higher than the original cost of construction. They were
buried along with much of the equipment used in the deconstruction, as that
too had also become irradiated. Buried along with aging nuclear submarine
reactors, and their center sections, missile components, tools, equipment,
clothing, building materials and entire buildings. In some cases even the
rail cars that transported these materials would be driven into mole-like
earth mounds. They had become too hot and deadly to be ever used again. Still
we were assured that someday an answer would be found for getting rid of
all this radioactive waste.

So here we are today some 60 years later, and we are told about the latest
high tech solution for dealing with some of this old waste. The plan is to
bury it, just like the Romans and the Pharos did with their garbage. Dig
a hole under Yucca Mountain and bury it, and hope it stays buried and won't
get into the water or air for at least 10,000 years, and quite possibly much,
much longer. The alternative is to try and keep it contained at those 131
sites. Some of the waste has already been buried, more then they could ever
move, at locations like Hanford where it continues to spread underground
in great plumes. Of course add to this mix the latest wild card of preventing
a terrorist attack on any of these sites.

It seems we have finally run out of time and choices. The amount of
radioactive waste has become so large, it can no longer be ignored. No more
excuses, no more myths about cheap, clean, safe nuclear power, no more Cold
War rhetoric about those Godless Russians coming to get us. Not one Russian
nuclear bomb or missile ever landed on our country and yet we have all become
contaminated. Every citizen in the world has elevated levels of radiation
in their bodies as a direct result of atomic testing and nuclear power. Some
of us much more than others. Out of fear, ignorance and greed, we have done
it to ourselves, setting off hundreds of nuclear explosions on our own country.
We have spread radioactive waste across the land with slogans of "keeping
the world free for democracy" or "cheap, clean safe nuclear power" and the
like.

Whatever we choose to do in the end may not matter. We have painted ourselves
into a corner. Whichever way we move to deal with our waste may be the wrong
way. There may not be a right way any longer; maybe there never was. One
thing is for sure, we have created it and it can't be put back into the bottle.
The Nuclear Genie is out!

The irony is that if you listen closely you can still hear these voices
out of the past calling for a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and for
more clean, safe nuclear power plants. George W .Bush and his allies in Congress
as part of his Energy Bill would create a Nuclear Power 2010 program. It
would use taxpayer money to subsidize permitting and licensing of new reactors.
Another part of the bill would be the Price Anderson Act which would exempt
"operators" of Nuclear Power Plants from full liability if a serious accident
should take place.

On January 2003, President Bush purposed spending billions of dollars
on fuel cell research during state of the union speech. What wasn't said
was that hundreds of millions of dollars will go to the petrochemical and
nuclear industry as the primary source for producing hydrogen. Only a tiny
fraction of that will go towards non-polluting sources of hydrogen, like
solar and wind.

Recently, during a closed meeting in July 2002, Police Commissioner Ray
Kelly of Manhattan responded to a question about evacuating the city in the
event of a radiological, chemical or biological attack. He said, "This is
a city of 8 million people. It can't be done."

There would be gridlock as in all of the other large cities.

Meanwhile President Bush, Congress and other, local leaders, are already
prepared with respiratory protection, emergency water, food, medical supplies,
and plans of their own to be evacuated by air, flown to safer parts of the
country or world. The public would be left to fend for itself. The Bush
Administration in an effort to project the image that everything is under
control and that the public is safe and secure has avoided publishing information
that might be useful in saving lives in the event of such an attack.

The Administration is currently in the process of completing a "super-critical
list" of potential terrorist targets. It will include targets that would
cause the greatest amount of damage to the United States in terms of lives,
money, national defense and public confidence. Among these are food and water
supplies, telecommunication systems, energy facilities and transportation
networks. Tom Ridge said that when the final report is finished, probably
by the end of 2002, that the public would not be provided the most sensitive
findings. "We will let you know how we reviewed it, how we made the assessments,
maybe some kind of recommendations, but we certainly don't want to be
telegraphing our defenses to the enemy."

The FEMA-produced information does not mention whether, why, or when to
evacuate and does not advise keeping plastic sheeting and duct tape available
to create a "safe room." Such a room could reduce a person's exposure by
up to 10 times.

No government agency recommends buying respirators. Even the inexpensive
simple 3M-N95 that sell for about $1.50 would stop 95% of particles over
3 microns. These masks and others that filter out particles over .5 microns
are available at paint departments in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Sears, etc. and
would help reduce exposure to chemical, biological and even anthrax
contamination. They could also be effective in preventing the inhalation
of deadly Alpha particles.

The government is not publishing any information on how to protect yourself
from the effects of radiation that might be the result of a "dirty bomb",
or any previously mentioned possible terrorist event. Doctors for Disaster
Preparedness recommend, "You need to have mass between yourself and the source
of radiation."

A small handheld radiation monitor about the size of a Sony Walkman is
available for $279.00. A kit form can be purchased for $170.00 that you can
put together yourself. Both come with a simple easy to understand instruction
manual. The Monitor 4 will detect the four main types of radiation: alpha,
beta gamma and x- ray. It is very accurate and calibrated to detect cesium
137, cobalt 60, Strontium 90 and many forms of Radium, Plutonium, Uranium,
Thorium and many other Isotopes and Sources of ionizing radiation.

John Sorensen, Director of Emergency Management Center at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (a nuclear research and weapons facility), volunteered to prepare
a simple easy to read pamphlet for the public that might help save lives,
but was told by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Red Cross
that "we're not in the business of terrifying the public," something that
has not been born out by the public's reactions to past catastrophes. Instead,
a decision has been made at the highest levels of our government not to provide
the public with information on how to protect itself during such an event,
while at the same time doing all that can be done to protect themselves.
These are political decisions made in order to maintain their own positions
of power and control at the risk of sacrificing the health and safety of
its own citizens.

In 1994, using a tunnel boring machine, DOE began constructing a system
of tunnels that will allow scientists to conduct seismological, geological
and hydrological studies—known as the Exploratory Studies Facility.
The five-mile tunnel was completed in 1997. Since then, scientists have expanded
tests in the tunnel and its numerous niches and alcoves to study the reaction
of rock and the movement of water through the rocks to the heat released
by used nuclear fuel in a repository. The data from these tests will help
scientists design the repository and assess its performance.

In 1998, DOE excavated a new tunnel, or cross-drift, more than a mile
inside the existing tunnel. The cross-drift cuts 1.7 miles through all the
rock layers of the potential repository section, allowing scientists and
engineers to examine and test the rocks that make up the potential
repository.

Full array of scientific apparatus deployed, data collected and analyzed

Since completing a 1.7-mile cross-drift tunnel spanning the entire planned
width of the proposed repository in 1998, DOE has deployed a comprehensive
array of scientific apparatus sufficient to complete its characterization
of the site and prepare for a possible site recommendation decision at the
end of 2001. DOE's scientific instruments have extracted a wealth of additional
data from hundreds of tunnel alcoves, tunnel niches, and boreholes in the
repository rock as well as from a number of surface locations. The enhanced
knowledge of the repository gained over these past 3 years has led to a
significant refinement of DOE's performance assessment of Yucca Mountain
since the 1998 viability assessment. This latest information has strengthened
scientific confidence in the repository's ability to protect public health
and safety, while uncovering no reason why used nuclear fuel and defense
high-level radioactive waste should not be permanently disposed of in Yucca
Mountain.

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A lung disease screening program has begun for current
and former workers who may have inhaled airborne silica at a federal nuclear
waste depository in the Nevada desert.

Two hundred letters have been mailed, and more will be sent soon to an
estimated 1,200 to 1,500 current and former Yucca Mountain site workers who
are eligible to take part in the free silicosis screening program, said program
manager Gene Runkle.

Two current workers are being treated for silicosis, Runkle said, although
he said it was not clear if they contracted the disease working at Yucca
Mountain.

Project managers did not know where most former workers were. Most were
involved in tunneling and underground operations or in setting up exploratory
experiments underground beginning in 1992.

Any worker who spends or spent 20 days a year working in the tunnels is
eligible, Runkle said.

The Energy Department was providing names of former workers to the University
of Cincinnati, which was handling silicosis screening and research. The
university was also working with The Center to Protect Workers' Rights to
contact trade unions and find former Yucca Mountain workers.

Most worked from 1992 to 1998, when tunnels were bored at the site, 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas. Workers were issued dust masks as protective
equipment, but Runkle said that from 1992 to 1996 the masks were not used
consistently.

Silica exists naturally in desert soils and in the rocks at Yucca Mountain.
It can become airborne during tunneling, and inhaled silica can collect in
the respiratory system. With long-term exposure, it can cause silicosis,
a chronic and progressive lung disease with symptoms including coughing and
shortness of breath, the Energy Department said.

2004-01-16 10:01:11 GMT

Copyright 2004

The Associated Press All Rights Reserved

Published on Monday, February 11, 2002 in the Baltimore Sun

Radioactive Wastes: The Risks on the Rails

Last Summer's Tunnel Fire Would Have Ruptured Containers, Contaminating
Baltimore, a Report Says

The nuclear industry says transport is safe

by Mike Adams

The metal containers designed to carry spent nuclear fuel from the Calvert
Cliffs plant and other reactors to a proposed storage site in Nevada would
have failed if the transport train had been engulfed in the estimated 1,500-
degree heat of the Baltimore rail tunnel fire last summer, according to a
consultant's report prepared for the state of Nevada.

More than 300,000 people would have been exposed to radiation leaking
from the containers, built to withstand 1,475 degrees for 30 minutes, said
the report compiled by Radioactive Waste Management Associates, which was
hired by Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects.

The Baltimore blaze lasted more than three days, from July 18 to 22. Its
duration and intense heat would have breached the two types of rail casks
used to haul spent fuel - one made of steel with lead lining and the other
of steel - under the conditions of the accident, the report concludes. The
fire would not have triggered a nuclear blast, but the city would have been
exposed to a catastrophic release of radiation.

Each rail cask weighs about 145 tons fully loaded and contains 260 times
the amount of radioactive cesium released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb, said
Matthew Lamb, a co-author of the report.

"While these containers are strong, ... they are not designed to withstand
everything that could happen on a transportation route," he said. "People
who live along these routes should know what the possible consequences are.
I don't want to be a fearmonger, the probability of these accidents is small,
but it is not zero."

The Nevada agency is monitoring a federal plan to ship radioactive waste
to Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Last month, Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham selected Yucca Mountain as the depository for about
77,000 tons of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste that is being stored
in 39 states, including Maryland. President Bush is expected to approve the
recommendation this week, according to congressional sources.

Some of those shipments would pass through Baltimore's Howard Street Tunnel,
part of one of the major East Coast rail routes.

Opposing views

Eileen Supko, a nuclear engineer who often serves as a spokeswoman for
the nuclear power industry, dismissed the Nevada report as "fearmongering."

"Truthfully, the purpose of that report from the state of Nevada and its
contractors was to stir things up and to scare people," she said. "A lot
of the rhetoric from the anti-nuclear groups is to generate fear. If you
look at the history of spent nuclear shipments, not just in the United States
but internationally, there has never been a release of radioactive materials
from the containers."

Nevada officials, including Sen. Harry Reid, a ranking Democrat, are trying
to derail the proposal by focusing on the dangers of transporting radioactive
waste. The Yucca Mountain proposal is unpopular in Nevada, where many residents
are angry about the nuclear waste it would send streaming into the state.

Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said he was unfamiliar with the report
and could not comment on its findings. But he said it might be prudent to
direct high-level radioactive waste away from "vulnerable" and "heavily
populated" areas.

If the plan moves forward, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of shipments of
radioactive waste would be sent to Yucca Mountain annually for 24 to 38 years
from 131 commercial, research and military reactors. Baltimore is one of
109 cities with populations of more than 100,000 along the likely shipping
routes.

The storage problem

About 20 percent of the nation's electricity is generated by 103 commercial
nuclear plants, and the industry's survival depends on the Yucca Mountain
disposal site. No nuclear plants have been built since the accident at Three
Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, and none are likely to be built without
a permanent solution to the storage problem.

Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's
main trade organization, said there are now 18 reactor sites with dry cask
storage and 14 more have such plans. By 2010, 60 commercial nuclear plants
will need dry cask storage.

Nuclear fuel consists of uranium pellets encased in metal rods. Used or
"spent" fuel is removed from the reactor to water-filled pools, where it
cools for about 10 years. It is then moved to "dry" storage, where it has
been piling up at reactor sites because there is no place to dispose of it.

Spent fuel has been accumulating at Calvert Cliffs since its first reactor
went online in 1975. There is enough storage space there to last the life
span of the plant's two reactors, which are licensed until 2034 and 2036,
respectively, said Steven W. Unglesbee, a spokesman for the plant.

Calvert Cliffs is owned and operated by Constellation Energy Group, the
parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., and produces about 40 percent
of the energy generated by the utility.

Some utilities are suing the Energy Department because it agreed to start
hauling the waste to Yucca Mountain about four years ago and the project
has fallen behind schedule. About $7 billion has been spent on the site,
which could open in 2010 at the earliest. The completed project is expected
to cost about $58 billion.

Assessing the risk

Yucca Mountain's opponents say the number of shipments and the uncertainties
inherent in transporting hazardous waste by truck and train increase the
probability of a catastrophic accident.

A spent fuel accident in the tunnel would have been disastrous for Baltimore.
Whole city neighborhoods would have had to have been razed to reduce radiation
to acceptable levels, Lamb said.

"It's either that," he said, "or the risk of a serious cancer hazard for
the people who live close to where the accident took place and downwind."

Singer said nuclear waste has been shipped safely by truck and rail for
more than 35 years. During that period, more than 3,000 shipments of spent
fuel have traveled about 1.7 million miles in this country.

Supko said the shipping containers must be able to survive hypothetical
accidents, represented by a 30-foot drop to a flat, unyielding surface, followed
by puncture test, heat and immersion in water. She said computer simulations
and actual tests on containers show that they will survive any likely accident.

Dropping a huge rail container onto a flat, unyielding surface is the
equivalent of a high-speed accident because the container absorbs all of
the energy, she said. Supko said the thermal test, which subjects containers
to an engulfing fire of 1,475 degrees for 30 minutes, simulates conditions
that would exceed a real-world accident, such as the tunnel fire.

In a transportation accident involving fire, the container would be sitting
on a flatbed truck or rail car, and that would result in a heat transfer
from the container to the other surface, she said.

A fire in which only the container is engulfed in flames is highly unlikely
and simulates higher temperatures in a real-world situation, she added.

Federal regulations do not prohibit spent fuel from being shipped with
other freight, so it could be involved in a rail accident such as the tunnel
fire, the report said. But Supko disagreed.

She said it is highly unlikely that a railroad would allow spent fuel
to be shipped with combustible chemicals or other hazardous cargo. It is
much more likely that a "dedicated train," a train that hauls only nuclear
waste, would be used to ship spent fuel to Yucca Mountain, she said.

Security arguments

When Abraham picked Yucca Mountain, he pointed to national security as
a reason for having a national nuclear waste repository.

"We should consolidate the nuclear wastes to enhance protection against
terrorist attacks," he said in a letter to Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn.

But critics say that implementing the plan would endanger national security.

"If Yucca Mountain moves forward, it merely increases the number of terrorist
targets," said Robert R. Loux, the executive director of Nevada's Agency
for Nuclear Projects. "We'll have 3,000 shipments moving by truck and train,
103 reactor sites and one big target - Yucca Mountain."

"Is it vulnerable to a terrorist attack? Anything is possible," he said.
"But due to the rigorous nature of the transportation canisters and the security
measures that are taken, any shipment of them - by train or by truck - it
would be very, very difficult, if not impossible [target] for a terrorist."

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,
etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Common Dreams NewsCenter

A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the
progressive community.

The following correction was published in the Wednesday, May 1, 2001 Deseret
News: A statement in a story Sunday on the nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain was mistakenly attributed to Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah. The statement
was actually provided to the Deseret News by a spokeswoman for Rep. Chris
Cannon, R-Utah. Cannon wrote, "Until more is known about transportation,
long-term safety and a final plan for Yucca Mountain, I think we as Utahns
should stand in opposition to nuclear waste carried to or through Utah."
Hansen spokeswoman Marnie Funk said Hansen does not share Cannon's position
on Yucca Mountain.

Isolated in the barren Nevada desert northwest of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain,
for most Utahns, is far out of sight and further out of mind.

Barren hills surround Yucca Mountain. Eighty to 90 percent of the nuclear
waste bound for Yucca would pass through the Wasatch Front.

Laura Rauch, Associated Press

But Nevada officials are issuing a clarion warning: If Yucca Mountain
is approved by Congress as the ultimate repository for the nation's nuclear
waste, Utah stands directly in harm's way, perhaps more than any other
state.

"Make no mistake about it, high-level nuclear waste will be traveling
by truck and by rail through the heart of Salt Lake City," said U.S. Sen.
Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Tens of thousands of heavy trucks laden with the deadliest waste known
to man, creeping one by one down I-15 at 35 mph through the heart of the
Salt Lake Valley on their way to southern Nevada.

Six trucks a day, each with police escorts, every day for 38 years.

In fact, 80 to 90 percent of the nuclear waste bound for Yucca Mountain
will pass through the Wasatch Front. Some 80,000 truck shipments and 16,000
rail shipments, Reid said.

"The question is not if there will be an accident, but when and where,"
he said. "Salt Lake City is the crossroads of the West. . . . I would be
willing to bet there will be an accident there."

Reid and Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn are leading a fight in Congress to block
Yucca Mountain. But a House committee overwhelmingly approved the Yucca Mountain
plan last week, and a full House vote on the repository will likely happen
later this week or early next week. The selection is expected to pass.

The Senate will take up the issue later in the spring, even as Nevada
mounts a last-ditch effort to block the repository.

What solidarity?

But Nevada officials are not counting on Republican members of Utah's
congressional delegation to support their opposition, despite what Reid says
are enormous risks to Utah.

Construction engineer Nelson O'Connor takes a visitor on a tour of a 5-mile
tunnel at Yucca Mountain.

Lennox McLendon, Associated Press

"Why the Utah congressional delegation is not on our side is mind-boggling,"
Reid said. "We have always tried to help Utah (in its own fight against nuclear
waste in Tooele County), and why they are not helping us is beyond my ability
to understand."

But they should be, Reid warns, noting that Nevada's fight to keep nuclear
waste out is also Utah's fight.

A revised environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain — tagged
by President Bush for 77,000 tons of the nation's spent nuclear fuel rods
— made some subtle changes in transportation routes that will direct
about 75 percent of all waste shipments west on I-80, down Parleys Canyon
to I-15 and then south down the Wasatch Front.

Most of the remaining nuclear waste will go to Yucca Mountain via rail
— through Utah.

There has been scarcely a peep of opposition to the plan from Utah Gov.
Mike Leavitt, who is locked in his own battle to keep nuclear waste from
a "temporary" storage site in Tooele County.

"I believe there is a need for a permanent solution, and I know the permanent
solution is not Utah's West Desert," Leavitt said. "My primary objective
is that waste not come to Utah's West Desert."

Leavitt would not say whether he supports or opposes Yucca Mountain as
a permanent solution to the nation's nuclear-waste problem, only that "we
have some interests in common with Nevada, and there are other interests
where we may diverge."

He says he has talked with Guinn about Yucca Mountain. The two governors
agree on some points, and they have agreed to disagree on others. "He understands
my position," Leavitt said, refusing to offer specifics.

But Nevada officials and their activist allies in Utah who are involved
in the Yucca Mountain battle are piqued at the Utah governor, especially
considering his many statements before the Western Governors Association
that "the West will not be the dumping ground for the nation."

"I guess he meant that Nevada wasn't part of the West," said Utah
anti-nuclear activist Steve Erickson, director of the Citizens Education
Project.

Leavitt's perceived lack of commitment has not gone unnoticed in Nevada,
where newspaper editorials have sharply criticized the Utah governor for
using his political muscle to kill a resolution in the state's Legislature
that would have expressed solidarity with Nevada in its fight against nuclear
waste.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., addresses the demonstrators at a protest rally.
Reid says the Utah delegation's lack of support for Nevada's fight against
the repository is "mind-boggling."

Dennis Cook, Associated Press

"I did not feel it was appropriate at this point to formalize a position
on Yucca Mountain," Leavitt said. "It was not the time to debate it."

But with Congress poised to take final action on Yucca Mountain in the
next couple of months, when is the right time for Utah to weigh in?

"Not now," Leavitt said. "It is a complex mix of technical, legal and
political factors, and we are doing the best we can to position Utah to protect
ourselves. That is our first priority."

Delegating responsibility

While Leavitt is choosing his words carefully, Republicans in Utah's
congressional delegation have historically supported Bush and the Yucca Mountain
proposal.

Political insiders say Republicans are standing in solidarity with their
Republican president, making the issue purely partisan. And they point to
$30 million in campaign contributions by the nuclear-power industry over
the past 30 months to sway congressional opinion on both sides of the political
aisle.

Sen. Bob Bennett said Friday he is undecided but leaning toward supporting
the Yucca proposal. Rep. Chris Cannon did not return calls.

Hatch believes the billions spent studying Yucca Mountain demonstrate
the site is an appropriate repository, and he believes the waste can be
transported safely.

"Sen. Hatch and Sen. Bennett are both reasonable men, and it is reasonable
to support Nevada's opposition to Yucca Mountain," Reid said. "There is still
room for them to change their minds."

One Republican who has shifted his position is Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah,
who isn't convinced yet that Yucca Mountain is the ultimate solution, and
he is more than a little concerned about the transportation risks that put
Utah in harm's way.

"Until more is known about transportation, long-term safety and a final
plan for Yucca Mountain, I think we as Utahns should stand in opposition
to nuclear waste carried to or through Utah," Hansen said.

Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah's only Democrat in Congress, says the state's
congressional delegation should be shouting with one voice that Utah and
Nevada should not and will not be a dumping ground for the nation's most
toxic wastes.

"There's no question Utahns ought to be concerned about the transportation
of that waste, and so should the 100 million other Americans living along
the routes," he said. Not only is there a risk of catastrophic accident with
no experience on how to respond, but there is now the risk of terrorism.

"Since Sept. 11, we have to think about what was once unthinkable," Matheson
said.

Matheson would not speculate on why most of his colleagues oppose nuclear
waste in Tooele County but not at Yucca Mountain. That contradiction is all
the more glaring considering that the two proposals, he believes, are tied
at the hip.

Then add to the mix the government's long history of lying to Western
states about the dangers of nuclear byproducts — what Matheson calls
"a legacy of mistrust and despair."

"The fact is Utah and Nevada have paid dearly for their patriotism and
trust during the Cold War," he said. "Enough is enough."

Permanent solutions

Leavitt may not be openly supporting Nevada, but at least one member
of his staff — Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Department
of Environmental Quality — is warning that Utahns should be concerned
about Yucca Mountain and its unavoidable link to a "temporary" waste dump
on Goshute tribal lands in Skull Valley.

Why? Simple mathematics, she said.

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation currently
has a stockpile of about 46,000 tons of nuclear waste from power plants,
and it is increasing by about 2,000 tons a year. The Department of Energy
predicts the amount of waste generated will drop as nuclear-power plants
are decommissioned, but there will be at least 105,000 tons of power-plant
radioactive waste by 2045.

Yucca Mountain will have a capacity to take only about 63,000 tons
(additional space is also reserved for about 14,000 tons of military nuclear
waste). That leaves about 42,000 tons of nuclear waste without a permanent
home.

It is not coincidence, Nielson said, that the Skull Valley site will
have a capacity of 40,000 tons — roughly the leftovers that won't fit
inside Yucca Mountain.

"A lot of people presume that if Yucca Mountain is built, the (Skull
Valley) facility won't be needed," Nielson said. But by 2045, Yucca Mountain
will be full, and "there will be 42,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel
rods with no other place to go except to Utah. And there will be nothing
temporary about it."

Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of nuclear-power utilities,
says it needs the Skull Valley facility to store 40,000 tons of waste, but
only until a permanent solution is built at Yucca Mountain, which longtime
PFS project manager Scott Northard formally endorsed Wednesday in an op-ed
article published in the Deseret News.

The consortium has a 20-year lease with the Skull Valley band of Goshutes,
and it has a second 20-year option. The PFS proposal calls for 40,000 tons
of spent fuel rods to be transported by railroad to Goshute tribal lands
where they will be stored in above-ground casks — unlike Yucca Mountain,
where the waste would be deposited deep inside the mountain.

Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn

On Thursday, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said the nation needs
Yucca Mountain because, in part, it would be much safer than storing waste
in above-ground canisters at Skull Valley — the first hints from the
Bush administration that temporary storage in Utah may not be the preferred
solution.

However, Abraham also said that without Yucca Mountain, the waste would
probably be shipped to temporary sites, like Utah.

As Leavitt suggests, why not just leave the waste where it is? "I think
that is a preposterous assertion on its face," Abraham said, asserting the
nation will not tolerate nuclear waste near major metropolitan centers and
waterways.

"It isn't going to happen that way," he said. "You're going to have the
shipping and the transportation to sites like the one being proposed on the
Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah."

The Atomic Safety Licensing Board is currently in Salt Lake City conducting
the final round of hearings on PFS's license application. It has already
ruled that PFS does not need to examine the transportation risks associated
with that project, unlike the Yucca Mountain proposal that underwent a detailed
examination of transportation risks.

Conjoined twins

Nevada officials say there is a certain irony in Utah's failure to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with Nevada in the nuclear-waste fight.

Not only has Nevada offered its technical expertise to Utah over the
years, but Nevada has been fighting the battle longer and the opposition
is much better organized and funded — resources that could benefit Utah
far more in a unified effort.

They also point to the remarkable similarities between the two opposition
strategies. Both states are challenging the safety of nuclear-waste
transportation, both states are challenging the scientific studies that support
the proposed location of the waste facilities in desert locales near major
metropolitan areas, and both states are using all their limited congressional
muscle to block the proposals in Washington.

Both states cite the detrimental impact of the proposals to state and
local economies, to real-estate values and tourism, and to wildlife and
water.

And both are using the argument the waste is safer left where it is now,
at nuclear-power plants across the country, rather than risking accidents
and terrorist attacks that could jeopardize millions along the transportation
routes.

Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt

"About the only difference," said Erickson, "is that Yucca Mountain has
the potential for volcanic activity. They both share the same potential for
earthquakes and groundwater contamination."

So why aren't the Utah and Nevada politicos working together?

"That is a question everyone in Nevada wants to know the answer to,"
said Bob Haldstead, who once advised Utah Goshutes opposed to the Skull Valley
plan and is now working with the Nevada delegation to try to block Yucca
Mountain.

While Utahns clearly don't want the waste in their own back yard, the
poll found that 52 percent of Utahns strongly or somewhat agreed with Bush's
decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain; only 24 percent were
opposed.

Erickson believes that Utah "support" for Yucca Mountain will turn around
once people realize the transportation risks involved and that 90 percent
of all Yucca-bound waste will come through Utah — most along the Wasatch
Front.

"People just don't realize that sending the waste to Yucca Mountain means
sending it to and through Utah," Erickson said.

Erickson may be right. Utahns are clearly worried about the dangers of
nuclear-waste shipments, according to the Deseret News/KSL-TV poll that found
that 77 percent were very or somewhat concerned about railroad shipments
of waste (the poll did not address truck shipments, which are inherently
riskier).

"Utahns ought to be worried about high-level waste transportation to
and through Utah regardless of where it is going," Nielson said.

So why, then, is the state not actively campaigning against Yucca Mountain?
Nielson said the more immediate threat is Skull Valley, and the state has
focused all its attention on stopping PFS.

"The gorilla in our case is PFS," she said. "We are certainly watching
Yucca Mountain, but the first train wreck is PFS. We are afraid of that,
literally."

WASHINGTON, DC, January 10, 2002 (ENS) - A mountain just 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas, America's premier gambling resort destination, has been approved
by the secretary of energy as the nation's long term geological repository
for high level nuclear waste.

Over the objections of Nevada politicians in both parties at every level
of government, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today notified Nevada
Governor Kenny Guinn and the Nevada Legislature that in 30 days he intends
to recommend to President George W. Bush that the Yucca Mountain site is
scientifically sound and suitable to hold radioactive waste.

Secretary Abraham said the development of Yucca Mountain "will help ensure
America's national security and secure disposal of nuclear waste, provide
for a cleaner environment, and support energy security."

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said he got the news by phone
this morning in a telephone call from Secretary Abraham.

"I told him that I am damn disappointed in this decision and to expect
my veto," Governor Guinn said. "I explained to him we will fight it in the
Congress, in the Oval Office, in every regulatory body we can , we'll take
all of our arguments to the courts. This fight is far from over."

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn (Photo courtesy Office of the Governor)

"I also told him that on behalf of all Nevadans, I am outraged that he
is allowing politics to override sound science," the governor said.

"At the conclusion of the call I told the secretary that I think this
decision stinks, the whole process stinks, and we'll see him in court."

The state of Nevada filed a lawsuit December 17, 2001 in federal district
court in Washington, DC to halt the Yucca Mountain Project. The state alleges
that Energy Department's ground rules for judging whether the site is suitable
for nuclear waste storage are contrary to what Congress intended.

The state asks that Secretary Abraham be prevented from making recommendations
on Yucca Mountain until the ground rules are reviewed by the courts.

Governor Guinn says the state is well prepared with a legal team that
includes nuclear scientists, physicists and environmental experts, all with
law degrees.

But Secretary Abraham toured the Yucca Mountain site on Monday and says
he believes the "science behind this project is sound and that the site is
technically suitable for this purpose."

"There are compelling national interests that require us to complete the
siting process and move forward with the development of a repository, as
Congress mandated almost 20 years ago," Abraham said today.

"A repository is important to our national security," the secretary said.
"We must advance our non-proliferation goals by providing a secure place
to dispose of any spent fuel and other waste products that result from
decommissioning unneeded nuclear weapons, and ensure the effective operations
of our nuclear Navy by providing a secure place to dispose of its spent nuclear
fuel."

"A repository is important to the secure disposal of nuclear waste. Spent
nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste, and excess plutonium for which
there is no complete disposal pathway without a repository are currently
stored at over 131 sites in 39 states. We should consolidate the nuclear
wastes to enhance protection against terrorists attacks by moving them to
one underground location that is far from population centers," he said.

"A repository is important to our energy security," Abraham said. "We
must ensure that nuclear power, which provides 20 percent of the nation's
electric power, remains an important part of our domestic energy production."

"And a repository is important to our efforts to protect the environment,"
said Abraham. "We must clean up our defense waste sites permanently and safely
dispose of other high level nuclear waste."

Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat who holds the powerful position
of Majority Whip called Abraham's decision "hasty and dangerous."

"It will come despite the growing mountain of evidence that the site is
unsuitable and that this site recommendation is premature," said Reid who
pins his hopes on President Bush who must agree on what Reid calls "the flawed
report."

"After he receives the secretary's report, President Bush has an opportunity
to cut through the bureaucratic pseudo-science, see this project for the
sham that it is, and do the right thing for America and Nevada by changing
course," Reid said.

Reid says the Department of Energy "has wasted $8 billion on Yucca Mountain
and has virtually nothing to show for it. Now they want taxpayers to spend
another $50 billion to develop a dump they can't prove to be safe. I hope
the President will just say no."

If the President agrees the site is suitable for a repository, he would
recommend it to Congress. Guinn and the Nevada Legislature would then have
60 days to submit a notice of disapproval to Congress, as they are expected
to do.

If the governor and the Legislature decline to veto the site during the
60 day period, Yucca Mountain automatically becomes an approved repository
site.

But if Guinn and the Legislature submit a notice of disapproval, Congress
has the option of passing a joint resolution to override the veto within
the first 90 days of a continuous congressional session. If Congress takes
this action, the joint resolution becomes law and the site is approved.

The Energy Department then is required to file a license application with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 90 days after the site recommendation.

Nevada opposition to the Yucca Mountain repository is bipartisan.
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, called the decision "grossly
irresponsible."

"As outlined by the December 2001 GAO [General Accounting Office] report,"
she said, "the secretary does not have the scientific data he needs to recommend
the site, and any recommendation is therefore scientifically premature."

Secretary Abraham's reasons "defy common sense," she said. "The so-called
'compelling national interests' cited by the secretary are more effectively
addressed by the continued and reinforced storage of spent fuel at the reactor
sites themselves. Furthermore, the secretary's claim that the repository
would further our national security is completely mistaken. In fact, the
transportation of nuclear waste through 43 states, and the construction of
a single identifiable repository outside the fastest growing metropolitan
region in the country, are gross and needless risks to our national security,
and a slap in the face to every Nevadan."

"The secretary's claim that the repository is important to protect the
environment is dangerously misleading," said Berkley. "Scientists have uncovered
compelling evidence suggesting that the site could be devastating to the
environment for tens of thousands of years."

In a document released today along with the notification, the Department
of Energy characterizes Yucca Mountain as safe and far enough from Las Vegas
so that it does not create a hazardous situation. "The mountain sits on
restricted federal land: part of the Nevada Test Site, combined with portions
of the Nellis Air Force Range and parcels managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. Since January 1951, over 900 U.S. nuclear weapon tests have been
conducted at the Nevada Test Site. The U.S. Geological Survey and national
laboratories have been studying the areaÍs geology and hydrology since
the start of atomic testing...Yucca Mountain would be one of the few nuclear
facilities located in a remote area where there are no metropolitan centers
within 75 miles."

"Water is the main means of transporting radionuclides out of a repository
and into the accessible environment. Yucca Mountain is located in one of
the most arid and remote deserts in the United States," says the Department
of Energy (DOE).

"Yucca Mountain also has many natural barriers that limit or delay what
little water is available from entering the emplacement drifts. DOE has designed
a set of engineered barriers that take advantage of the natural features
and work in concert with the natural environment to isolate waste for tens
of thousands of years... Only about one percent of the waste packages are
projected to lose their integrity during the first 80,000 years."

But a range of citizens groups object to Yucca Mountain on environmental
grounds. Kalynda Tilges of Citizen Alert, a Las Vegas based organization
which has taken the lead in this campaign, says her group works with the
Sierra Club and with Friends of Nevada Wilderness to educate the public about
the dangers of burying nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain - even with engineered
barriers.

"What makes the mountain unsafe is that there's a lot of seismic activity
in that area," Tilges said Monday. "There's a lot of volcanic cones out there
and the DOE has state they have no idea if there's even magma under Yucca
Mountain. There's 15 faults that run through the mountain, and they're already
shown that water travels through the mountain very, very fast. It's not nearly
as dry as they thought it was."

Water travelling through Yucca Mountain would allow radioactivity to escape
from the repository, Tilges warns. "It means superheated steam with corrosive
minerals in there that will eat right through the canisters and expose the
waste into the heat and into the rock. And the Department of Energy still
doesn't know how this is all going to react together."

MAYOR: 'I just have a terrible, terrible time understanding how they can
justify appeasing Oak Ridge and bringing it the long way around through
Oliver Springs.'

By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com

When it comes to shipments of waste cylinders, Oak Ridge's loss is
apparently Oliver Springs' and Clinton's gain, according to at least one
official. Oliver Springs Mayor Ed Kelley confirmed that shipments of
depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders have been coming through his
town, hitting Highway 61 to Clinton and ending up on Interstate 75 to
Ohio. He also noted that one of the trucks hauling the material was
involved in a minor traffic accident last month.

On the other hand, Clinton Mayor Wimp Shoopman said he was unaware that
the waste was being shipped through his city.

The depleted uranium hexafluoride in question is a byproduct of an
operation where uranium was ultimately processed into nuclear reactor
fuel and weapons-grade material. Stored in cylinders at the Oak Ridge
K-25 site, the material is being shipped to Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant in Ohio.

Transport of the waste cylinders was met with a little controversy
last year when it appeared the material would be hauled through the city
of Oak Ridge. Though DOE and its cleanup contractor, Bechtel Jacobs Co.,
have declined to disclose transport routes, some officials have
suggested that Oak Ridge Turnpike was never considered for use in
transporting the material to Clinton and I-75.

"I just have a terrible, terrible time understanding how they can
justify appeasing Oak Ridge and bringing it the long way around through
Oliver Springs," said Kelley, who added the shipments come out of
K-25 and hit Blair Road en route to Oliver Springs.

The Oliver Springs mayor said the early morning waste shipments stopped
at least three times at the school crossing in front of Norwood schools.
Kelley also said at least one of the transport trucks has been involved
in a traffic accident.

A report filed by Oliver Springs Police Officer Tim Elmore indicates a
vehicle ran into one of the trucks while it was preparing to turn onto
Highway 61 to go to Clinton. The driver of the cylinder truck was not at
fault, and neither the transport truck nor its load was reportedly
damaged.

Kelley said DOE had a "screaming fit" because Oliver Springs
officials released the truck involved in the accident so it could
proceed to its destination.

"We didn't have any idea what we were supposed to do," Kelley
said.

Both DOE spokesman Walter Perry and Bechtel Jacobs spokesman Dennis Hill
said they were unaware of any other accidents involving the cylinder
transport trucks. They also declined to confirm the transport route
mention by Kelley or comment on whether multiple routes are being
utilized.

Hill said more than 700 cylinders have been shipped to date, with
about 5,200 remaining to be transported to Portsmouth. The goal is to
have all of the cylinders out of Oak Ridge by the end of fiscal year
2005.

"The frequency and size of individual shipments is security
sensitive information," Hill said. "Because of that, we don't
want people to have enough information to calculate how many or how
often cylinders are shipped."

With more shipments ahead, Kelley has sent a letter to DOE requesting
that the federal agency make some kind of payment to Oliver Springs
because the "large and heavy trucks" will be using roads
through the town. The mayor said the payments would be used to maintain
and upgrade streets in addition to various other projects to improve the
town.

A Victory for Consumers in Yucca Mountain Fight; NRC Overrules Energy
Department's Claim That It Made Information Public

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) judicial arm, the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board, unanimously ruled today that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) failed to make publicly available on the
Internet all documents related to the Yucca Mountain Project, as
required by law. As a result, Yucca Mountain's timeline has once
again been postponed due to the government's inability to follow its own
guidelines.

Federal regulation requires the DOE to make all of its documentary
information related to its Yucca Mountain license application available
online six months in advance of filing its application. Therefore, to
meet its self-imposed application deadline of December 2004, the DOE
would have had to post all its supporting documents online by June 30,
2004. At 5 p.m. on June 30 - exactly six months to the day - DOE
certified in writing that its documentary material was
"available."

Posting all relevant Yucca Mountain documents online allows the
public to review the materials and participate effectively in the Yucca
Mountain licensing proceedings. This purpose cannot be achieved unless
the Web site is fully functional and complete.

Despite DOE's self-certification, all of the information related
to the Yucca Mountain licensing application was not available to the
public on June 30, nor is it all available to this day. The agency
admitted to the licensing board that of the estimated 2.1 million
documents related to the project, only half are posted online, although
officials did not explain why. In addition, more than four million
e-mails related to research on the Yucca Mountain Project - often
important sources of information - have not been posted.

According to the licensing board, "[W]e conclude that because of
the incompleteness of its document review and production, the many years
that DOE has had to gather and produce its documents, and the fact the
date of production was effectively within DOE's control, DOE's document
production on June 30, 2004, did not satisfy its obligation to make, in
good faith, all of its documentary material available pursuant to"
NRC's regulations. The NRC will not accept the DOE's licensing
application until six months after all the documents have been made
available, meaning the project will be delayed indefinitely until the
documents are posted.

The DOE does not appear to be capable of this task. Together with the
recent court ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
illegally set a 10,000-year compliance period for the radiation release
standards of groundwater at Yucca Mountain (a ruling that also has
delayed the project), it is clear that the Yucca Mountain Project is
flawed both in its science and in its management and should be
abandoned.

While the West
fears that Iran and North Korea are diverting their nuclear-power
programmes to nefarious ends, it has a growing worry about its own
nuclear stations: what to do with their radioactive waste
SINCE the
accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, no
nuclear-power generator has been built in America. But the nuclear
industry is now more optimistic than at any time since then of making a
comeback. Even before last month’s huge power failure across much of
America and Canada, President George Bush was pushing Congress to pass
an energy bill that included incentives for building new nuclear-power
stations. A version of the bill including subsidies of up to $10 billion
to build nuclear stations was dropped by the Senate a fortnight before
the big blackout. But a final version, including some nuclear subsidies,
is likely to pass soon. With Congress returning from its summer break
this week, its two houses are expected shortly to form a committee to
iron out their differences on the issue.

Proponents of
a nuclear-power revival argue that America, indeed the world, needs more
generating capacity but without increasing its dependence on fossil
fuels. Nuclear power provides a fifth of America’s electricity,
compared with about a third of Japan’s and Germany’s, and more than
three-quarters of France’s. Accidents such as the one at Three Mile
Island and, seven years later, the much more serious one at Chernobyl in
Ukraine, are not the only reason why the construction of nuclear
stations has almost stopped in rich countries. Privatisation and
liberalisation of energy markets have exposed the full costs of a
technology that was once expected to deliver “electricity too cheap to
meter”, including the enormous cost of dismantling nuclear stations at
the end of their lives and disposing of the radioactive wastes they
produce.

America,
Britain and Australia all have plans to create national repositories for
nuclear waste. But all are facing fierce opposition from locals at the
chosen locations. In America, the Department of Energy has chosen Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, as the site of a national dump for nuclear waste,
which is currently scattered across sites in 43 states. But the plan is
opposed by the local Western Shoshone and Paiute Indians, and Nevada’s
state government has gone to court to try to stop it. (Unlike their
Nevadan brethren, the Goshute Indians in Utah are supporting a plan to
build a temporary store for used nuclear-fuel rods on their Skull Valley
reservation.) Australia’s federal government is also facing battles
with the state governments of South Australia and Western Australia over
plans for national low- and intermediate-level waste dumps on their
territory.

Since the
September 11th attacks on America, fears have grown that besides the
danger of leaks from inadequate nuclear storage facilities, they could
be the target of terrorist attacks. A recent study by scientists from
Massachussetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University concluded
that nuclear power was a viable long-term option. But it also said the
industry’s prospects were limited by, among other things, the
unresolved issue of how to store waste safely.

Whereas most
countries with nuclear generators simply store their used fuel rods—at
the power station, if no longer-term repository has been
agreed—Britain and France recycle, or “reprocess”, their rods,
thereby reducing the amount of high-level waste produced. Reprocessing
plants such as Britain’s, at Sellafield in Cumbria, extract the
remaining uranium, and the plutonium that is a useable product of the
nuclear reactions in the rods, to make fresh fuel. When the nuclear
industry first got going, reprocessing seemed sensible because natural
uranium was thought to be scarce. But it has turned out to be so
abundant that the economic case for reprocessing is now in doubt. Last
month, the Guardian revealed plans to wind down the Thorp
reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which recycles fuel sent from as far
away as Japan. Its state-owned operator, BNFL, issued a half-hearted
rebuttal.

With
reprocessing looking like being wound down in Britain, the amount of
high-level waste in need of a safe, permanent store is likely to rise
faster than it is now. The decommissioning of Britain’s first
generation of nuclear-power stations, which were built in the 1950s and
1960s, has begun, creating large amounts of intermediate- and low-level
waste. Britain already has a national dump for most of its low-level
nuclear waste, at Drigg near Sellafield. But it is filling up faster
than expected and the government’s advisory body on radioactive waste
recently called for a start to be made on alternative means of disposal.

Britain’s
search for a suitable dump for intermediate-level waste, in impervious
rocks deep underground, began in the late 1980s. A site—again, close
to Sellafield—was identified in the early 1990s, but in 1997 the
outgoing Conservative government dropped the proposal. The current
Labour government’s plan is to come up with a proposal of its own by
perhaps 2006. Since there is, for now, somewhere to put the low-level
waste, the most pressing problem is what to do with the
intermediate-level waste, which is produced in very large volumes.
High-level waste is produced in much smaller amounts but generates a lot
of heat (due to its continuing nuclear decay). The current plan is to
encapsulate the high-level stuff in glass and store it above ground for
50 years—in the hope that a long-term solution to the problem has been
found by then.

Scientists are
seeking ways of either destroying radioactive wastes or putting them
where they can do no harm. Last month, New Scientist reported
that a team led by Ken Ledingham of Strathclyde University in Glasgow
was experimenting with a giant laser that zaps the radioactive waste,
making it decay in minutes rather than millions of years. And in the
August issue of Geology, Fergus Gibb of Sheffield University and
colleagues announced that experiments had demonstrated the viability of
a scheme to drop high-level waste into deep boreholes in granite. The
rock surrounding the waste would melt and eventually re-solidify,
encasing the material in an impervious and inaccessible “coffin”.

Years of
further research are needed before such ideas can be put into action. In
the mean time, the cost of handling radioactive waste means that—even
if a heavy “carbon tax” on fossil fuels were introduced in rich
countries—nuclear-power plants would probably not be economically
viable without public subsidies.